On Feb 10, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Christoph Päper
> <christoph.paeper@crissov.de> wrote:
>> Simon Fraser (2012-02-09 09:00):
>>> <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-transforms/#two-d-transform-functions>
>>
>> I haven’t cared about the transform (or animation) specs at all. I took a first look at the combined spec right now and I’m wondering:
>>
>> Why is it
>>
>> rotate(α, tx, ty) or rotate(α)
>>
>> but
>>
>> rotate3d(x, y, z, α)
>>
>> i.e. reversed order of angle and origin – or more generally: why are 3D functions not mere extensions of 2D functions with additional z parameters?
>
> Argh, the commas, they kill me.
>
> Please please please remove the comma between tx and ty, so rotate() a
> two-arg function. Then remove the commas between x, y, and z, so
> rotate3d() is a three-arg function.
Well, I choose the same syntax rules as for the other transformation functions. Also, I still think it is better to have a general definition like CSS Values [1] has it, instead of having different notations all over the place and confuse authors when they have to set a comma and when not. I wouldn't even care if there should be commas between transformation functions. But I don't want to reopen the discussion on this place :).
-Dirk
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/#functional-notation